‘The Five Fatal Mistakes’

Time magazine’s Scott MacLeod, reporting from the Middle East, recently spoke to a veteran Western diplomat who couldn’t muster any optimism about the future of the region. “The region is in as serious a mess as I have ever seen it,” he said. “There is an unprecedented number of interconnected conflicts and threats.”

It led MacLeod to compile a list of the president’s “five fatal mistakes” that contributed to the crisis in the Middle East. It’s a pretty solid list.

1. Bush ignored the Palestinians: “When Bush became president, he ended crucial American mediation, repudiated Arafat and backed Sharon, who proceeded to expand Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. With the conflict becoming bloodier than ever, Arafat died, and Hamas, the fundamentalist party that adamantly refuses to even recognize Israel, much less negotiate with it, ousted the late Palestinian leader’s party from power.”

2. Bush invaded Iraq: “After 9/11, Bush became convinced that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons and represented a mortal threat to the West. He also came to believe that ousting Saddam would turn Iraq into a democracy that would become the model for the rest of the Arab world. Saddam turned out not to have nuclear weapons, and Iraq turned out to be more prone to civil war than democracy. It runs the risk of becoming a failed state from which terrorists run global operations, and/or breaking into ethnic mini-states that inspire secessionist trouble throughout the region.”

3. Bush misjudged Iran: “Just after Bush became president, Iranians reelected moderate President Mohammed Khatami, who had reached out to the U.S. and called for a “dialogue of civilizations.” Bush not only refused to extend the olive branch cautiously offered by the Clinton Administration, he declared Iran part of an ‘axis of evil.’ Khatami left office under fire for the failure of his conciliatory approach, to be replaced by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who proceeded to promote Iran’s nuclear ambitions and call for Israel to be wiped off the map.”

4. Bush hurt Israel: “If protecting Israel had been a key goal of the Administration’s policies, it is hard to see how they have helped make the Jewish State better off today.”

5. Bush alienated Muslims: “The Bush Administration’s involvement in or perceived support of military campaigns against Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese heightened Muslim anger at the U.S. and undermined the political position of moderate, pro-American Arabs.”

I don’t disagree with any of these points; in fact, I think they’re spot on. I’d just add a few.

For one thing, Bush neglected Afghanistan. For all the talk about “finishing the job” in Iraq, the president invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban from power, helped install a real government … and then walked away. Conditions in the country have deteriorated ever since and now the Taliban is gaining power.

For another, Bush blew off al Qaeda. After vowing to get bin Laden “dead or alive,” the president decided that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks weren’t the real problem; Saddam Hussein, a feckless thug, was. It certainly made it appear as if the administration was more concerned with Iraq than fighting an effective war on terrorism.

Moreover, Bush not only made a mistake in invading Iraq; botching reconstruction was almost as bad. What kind of message did it send to the Middle East when, thanks to Bush administration policy, Iraq suffered from power outages, overflowing sewage, and high unemployment? The Bush gang never gave this stage of the conflict a moment’s thought — and it shows.

And then Bush decided to embrace torture. Secret CIA prisons, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo … there was no better way for the president to cede the high ground faster than by embracing his abusive detainee policies.

We could probably do this all day, but MacLeod’s list, coupled by my suggested additions, seems like a pretty good start to describe the worst regional policy in American history.

Did we miss anything?

My list of the five fatal mistakes: Kennedy’s vote; O’Connor’s vote; Rehnquist’s vote; Scalia’s vote; and Thomas’s vote.

See Bush v. Gore.

  • Boy George II operates from a position of ignorance and arrogance. He imagines he has all the answers when he does not even understand the questions.

    What more do you need to say?

  • In January 2002, a few short months after 9/11 and in office for just a year, Bush made his belligerent “axis of evil” pronouncement in the SOU, and has spent the rest of his presidency acting on his unwavering belief that he was right.

  • MacLeod states: ” “After 9/11, Bush became convinced that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons and represented a mortal threat to the West.”

    Really? Is MacLeod one of the few remaining who actually believe that the “mushroom cloud” was anything more than a pretext to attack Iraq? Or is he a water carrier and just another justification for my canceling my Time subscription after decades of readership. (I cancelled after the last straw–the gargoyle Ann Coulter as covergirl).

    Every time anyone takes as conventional wisdom that Bush was honestly mistaken about WMD, bullshit must be called.

  • In Bush’s blundering administration it would be more informative to ask, what hasn’t been a mistake.

  • Jimmy Carter sez of invading Iraq: “it’s going to prove, I believe, to be one of the greatest blunders that American presidents have ever made.”

    And coming from History’s Greatest Monster ™… (finish your own joke).

  • As ugly as it sounds, the Iraq war was simply an excuse for 43 to exercise a personal vendetta against Saddam (for daring to target his father) and finish a job that 43 thought that 41 left undone.

    Now, it’s looking like the lesson is — (1) never let personal feelings affect foreign policy and (2) 41 had it right when he refused to march on Baghdad.

    Another other spin about WMDs is merely that — spin. The president had his own preconceived ideas about what to do about Iraq right before the 2000 election. Just witness some books stating that right at 9/11 the president asked about Iraq.

    Bush had the opportunity to remake Iraq, but is facing the consequences of his own failure to ask questions, ensure that things were done, and fire people as needed. In short, he fails as a business manager by anyone’s standards.

  • i’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again: the critical mistake that doomed bush’s presidency came during that of his father when he reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge (for good reason) and was pilloried for it. as a result, bush fils has made very few definitive statements, and those he has he will not turn away from for fear of also being pilloried.

  • I don’t believe Bush made many mistakes at all. Most of the above (except #4, that was unanticipated) were wilful ideological criminal anticipated negligence.

  • I think Bush invaded Iraq simply to show up his dad. But I don’t doubt he was serious about believing Saddam had WMD. The reason — and the problem — is that although he probably didn’t believe it at first, he convinced himself it was inarguably true. With the help of Rove and the neocons he has convinced himself that many other bad calls are true. He has a knack for lies, self-delusion and excuses. That’s one of his few skills.

  • What Frak said, plus these:

    From the get-go, Bush surrounded himself with a bunch of criminals. People who were convicted of crimes back in the Iran/Contra days. People who have advocated anti-democratic actions for decades.

    Bush squandered the opportunity of 9/11 to break our addiction to oil. Instead, he did the exact opposite, plunging us into the middle east, wasting enough money to solve our energy dependence.

    Bush ignored his generals, and even own father’s warnings about invading Iraq. He listened to a bunch of cranks who have never been right about anything.

    Bush squandered our conventional forces and left us unable to project force if needed, thus encouraging all our enemies for as long as it takes to rebuild our forces and national will to fight.

    Bush stubbornly refuses to accept that he is the Worst President Ever. He continues to demand that he be in charge of “solving” the continuing problems, rather than actually solving a large number of them by firing Cheney and then putting the barrel of Saddam’s gun in his mouth.

  • I’d add too that Bush’s ineffectual handling of Afghanistan and Iraq have proven to a hostile world that we are a paper tiger. Don’t look for too many future wars to be averted simply through threats.

  • Maybe if Bush had had to feel the personal effects of failure during his many ventures instead of being baled out, he might have grown up just enough to not be so simplistic in his thinking and impervious to the effects of reality.

  • I agree with other commenters who suggest that it depends on your definition of “mistake.” Mistake for the US, certainly; for Bush and boy genius Rove, a lot of this was a feature not a bug, at least in the early going, now it’s blowing up in their face too.

    Focusing on Iraq, I think they were eager to invade Iraq from day one because they thought they could parlay that into a bigger GOP majority and more domestic gains. See an article by Russ Baker (subsequently confirmed by Houston Chronicle reporter Kim Cobb) which reports Bush campaign biographer Mickey Herskowitz’s claims that Bush and his pre-election advisers were “fixated” on how Margaret Thatcher parlayed the Falklands War into domestic political gains.

    That’s the fundamental mistake: starting what they thought would be a “little” war for domestic enjoyment and political gains. That’s why we’re in Iraq, he just can’t admit it now. I think the same goes for torture.

  • I think the building a Bush Legacy will take considerably more than Half a BILLION DOLLARS. There may not be enough payola in the solar system to whitewash the failure that is the Bush/Cheney Administration.

    Lest we forget: “Bin Laden Determined to attack in the US.”

    It took a special kind of arrogance to proactively ignore this kind of warning

  • The “mother of all fatal flaws” is that Herr Bush cannot face himself. He screws up, then walks away from the problem with the profound belief that it will sort itself out. This atrocity of a decider wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in the infernal regions, if he ever had to turn around and wade through the unfathomable morass he’s left behind for America to clean up. He is, without question, America’s fatal flaw….

  • I agree with others that none of these, or maybe just #4, were mistakes.
    Bush blew off al Qaeda
    I don’t see that this one compares with the others. Al Qaeda is on the run, and much less effective. They have little to do with our current problems in Iraq or Afghanistan.

  • Frak beat me to the point about Bush becoming convinced Hussein had WMD so I’ll just second his call of Bullshit!

    His decision to invade Iraq and at the same time ignore North Korea’s nuclear ambitions has ruined his Admin’s ability to bargain with countries that want to start nuclear programs. The same could be said of Iran. I bet Hussein wishes he’d said “Yeah, I’ve got nukes, tons of them. Why don’t you come get ’em?” Bush would have shut right the hell up and gone whining to the UN about an embargo. (I just read NoKo won’t be able to get iPods. Ooo. Ouch.)

    And what about cozying up with the Christo-fascists? Not only do these people exhibit some of the worst traits humanity has to offer, now that he’s given those louts a taste of real political power it’ll take years to shove that particularly malevolent jinn back into the bottle.

    Oh hell, why not just say after he decided to run for president it’s been all down hill from there?

  • I wonder how those Bushie historians will spin all these mistakes in their writings for the proposed Bush library. Great legacy you left us, Dubya!

  • Bush blew off the empathy much of the world felt toward the US in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Had he jumped on that as a opening to convince others that terrorism is a threat to all nations, and fighting it is in the self-interest of everyone (well, nearly everyone), we might be having very different conversations now. At least it was worth a try. Instead, Bush turned belligerent, and in many respects, we’re worse off than we were.

  • I’d agree with all of these, except the first. Sadly, between about 2001 and 2003 there was no hope for negotiations. In 2000, Clinton had proposed a plan for an independent Palestinian state. Arafat had the option to negotiate on that basis. Instead he chose a military solution (which, for Palestinians, means blowing up cafes, pizza parlors, buses, hotels, restaurants, or any other place where there aren’t soldiers). Powell visited the region in early 2001, got a few commitments from both sides about ratcheting down the violence; the Israelis complied and the Palestinians didn’t. From then on the hardliners controlled US policy towards the Palestinians.

    I do blame Bush for giving up on the whole thing – if it was clear that the US was still engaged, still willing to back a settlement like the Clinton plan, that might have helped US prestige in the region.

    It’s ludicrous to say “Sharon proceeded to expand settlements”. You can make a legitimate case that Israel should’ve froze settlements in the 90s, though it’s also the case that Barak offered to dismantle settlements in 2000. By the time Sharon took over it wasn’t a question of whether settlements were slightly larger or slightly smaller. As it happened, Sharon became the first Israeli leader to evacuate settlements, in 2005.

    It’s kind of a shame a “veteran Western diplomat” would have such a lousy memory, but that’s an example of why veteran Western diplomats have so little credibility these days.

  • All of these mistakes in judgement are but a hair’s breadth away from being labeled Bush personality flaws. What’s more flawed, the decisions or the man who made them? To get a bit more meta on this list of five mistakes, I’d add the following:
    – Bush’s complete rejection of diplomacy in confronting foes or potential foes. Drawing lines in the sand and saying you’re with us or against us is just puerile behavior.
    – Bush’s unilateral exceptionalism and doctrine of infallability. The US in never wrong in what it does and neither is W. Arguements to the contrary are from enemies of the US.
    – Trust the loyal above the smart. A Frontline documentary on the Iraq reconstruction called the appointment of so many inexperienced Repub loyalists “heroic amateurism.” Foolhardy amateurism is a better fit.
    – Bush sees only black and white and not shades of gray. Never again elect a fool into office who says he “doesn’t do nuance.”
    – Bush doesn’t deal with problems. Arguably Bush’s most fatal flaw is that he has never dealt with his alcoholism and as such has perpetuated his string of never addressing his problems in any real way.

  • What appear as George Bush’s blunders and bungles are actually precisely timed events leading up to the completion of The Master Plan of the Ages! Where does one find this plan? Read the Old Testament prophets of Daniel and Ezekiel and the New Testament writers Matthew and John’s Revelation of Jesus Christ. Pieces of the ancient puzzle are falling into their exact places at the exact right times. When one sees daily events in the context of the Master Plan, current events speak eloquently and loudly to the fact of God’s control of history – in fact, we are not “out of control” just blundering from one catastrophe to the next, though it often appears so.

    The real problem is that many are looking at the events and are trying to anticipate potential reactions. By looking backward from the prophecies of the Bible, one gains an appreciation that events are not at all random. In fact, the news becomes a settling factor that nations and governments are not aimlessly wandering about searching for the next right move! I am settled on the fact of God’s sovereignty in His universe. I sleep well with this wonderful knowledge.

    My advice is to take the time to study the Bible and what it has to say about the future of this planet! It has much to say and also how events will unfold. But to many, the Bible has become a dusty old book that has no relevance to modern life. This could not be farther from the truth. It is as relevant to life today as it was in the first century!

    Sincerely, Pablo

  • Dear Pablo V: The problem with your view of the sovereignty of God and the inevitability of prophetic writings, is that the Scripture you refer to are vague and subject to widespread interpretation. Caryn Armstrong in the introduction to her book The Battle for God, talks about two types of truth: Mythos and Logos. Mythos is a much more subjective type of truth, using language and stories to illustrate its conclusions. Religion deals with a mythos type of truth. Logos truth is more like math class, objective and verifiable. Armstrong’s point is that in time of great social change or stress, there is a tendency of people to try to control a very fluid situation, so often people will try to use standards reserved for logos to prove mythos. When that happens, we have fundamentalism, which springs from a desire to preserve the old ways and stop the progress of current events. It is easy to see this phenomenon when we think of Moslem terrorists, but we clearly have a somewhat less lethal version going on in the Christian world.

    Change is very disturbing, and people reach out for the familiar and conventional. Christians are looking for answers and are finding it in scripture. I want you to think about this though: In the early 1800’s everyone with a Bible believed that Napoleon was the anti-Christ, in the mid Twentieth Century, everyone believed Hitler was, but Jesus told us that no person knows what day or hour judgment comes.

    It’s fun to read the scriptures you speak of (and there are many others) and try to plug today into them and try to apply the scientific method to them, but it is a somewhat dishonest activity. It is not good to be comfortable with “wars and rumors of wars” just because Jesus said it was coming one day. It is every Christian’s responsibility not to be comfortable with war, but to work for peace for our children and grandchildren. Further it is every Christian’s responsibility to work for justice, and not look at the sinful state of the world and say it is part of God’s plan.

    I write this as a devout Christian and a child of God.

  • CB: Moreover, Bush not only made a mistake in invading Iraq; botching reconstruction.. . You call it a “mistake” — that’s very forgiving and not at all accurate. It was, no two ways about it, a crime. Read your international law, please.

    CB: ..the president decided that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks weren’t the real problem; Saddam Hussein, a feckless thug, was. . Thug, yes. Feckless, definitely not. He held his country together, albeit by thuggery which, in hindsight, may well have been necessary, way far better than anything the Bush charade has achieved which, as you rightly indicate, further compounds his crime.

    Otherwise, when toughened up, “a pretty solid list” (of indictment?).

  • It [the Bible] is as relevant to life today as it was in the first century! — Pablo V

    The Bible didn’t exist in the first century.

  • “The Bible didn’t exist in the first century.” – beep52

    Probably a good thing too otherwise people would have noticed that Jesus promised that the coming of the Kingdom of God was scheduled to happen in the first century and not now as Pablo so sadly misinforms us.

  • @27:
    It [the Bible] is as relevant to life today as it was in the first century! — Pablo V

    The Bible didn’t exist in the first century.

    Comment by beep52

    Cheese Louise, Beep52. How can you be so cruel? Using facts is just plain “no fair!”

  • Right. I suspect Pablo V is a visitor from another blog; one where outrageous snark presented with a straight face is the specialte de la maison.

    Let’s see: Pablo, would you like some pie?

  • Stop blaming W. He did not appoint himself, didn’t he? Maybe next time the American voters will do some thinking before actually voting. I hate to remind you but “Every nation deserves the government they have.”

  • Comments are closed.